Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:26, 24 December 2006

• User talk:The Filmaker/Archive1

Revenge of the Sith

Please don't revert changes for no good reason. If you knew enough about filmmaking to make an educated edit, then you'd know that there are only 2,500 shots total in almost any movie out there, short of something that's about four hours long. So the information previously entered on the ROTS page, like so much on Misplaced Pages, is totally wrong -- there aren't "over 3,500 effects shots" in ROTS because there aren't even close to that many total shots at all! There are exactly 2,151 and this is well documented, well known information. There is only ONE "Making Of" book. The point of Misplaced Pages as you well know is for people who have knowledge and information to contribute and make it better and more accurate. I'm writing a book on the subject, I've done my research, so if the citation is not proper or correct, then fix it! The lazy way is to revert a good change because the citation is not perfect (even though I did put it there), but the way to do it that benefits everyone is to fix the citation to your liking! Thanks.

Ep iv

Today I sat down to copedit it for you, and I dropped my cup of tea on the keyboard. I've only just got a new one, so I haven't done it yet. I have school tomorrow, so I must sleep now. The article will be done within a week, but most likely within four days (I hope). Sorry about that. The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! _{I'm a P. I.!} 11:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Producers (2005 film)

In the 2005 film version of The Producers, although it takes place in the 1950s, please put the year they said in the film it takes place. PJ Pete

Thanks

Thanks again for expressing your free rights to alter the Public Access Television article's discussion page. Yet, you cease to amaze me. You're so bent on trying to burn me. You think I made a mistake and your God's gift to humanity to make sure that people know my efforts in getting the article GA and FA failed. And not only failed, but you relish pointing out that I failed miserably. You're entitled to your opinion but way to go on supporting freedom of speech. I hope you remember this the day whoever takes freedom away from us and you're no longer able to watch Star Wars again. Your Brother in Christ, DavidWJohnson 13:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Empire

Well, I kinda jumped the gun, and re-vamped both the plot summary and the cast section ages ago, so I've kinda given all I've got. :( But good luck, and do a damn good job...it's my #1 film of all time. ...._(Complain) 01:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Believe it or not, I have a short break before exams at the end of this week. I will do ANH then, or so help me god I'll go on forced WikiBreak!! The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! _{I'm a P. I.!} 04:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep sounds good. Then toward the later half of November - if you have compiled all the information - I'll be able to copyedit ep 5 + 6 as well. The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! _{I'm a P. I.!} 22:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Buffy article

Hiya

Being a fan of the works of Joss Whedon, I first noticed your work through Serenity, and then your amazing work on the Star Wars film articles. I have recently been working on Buffy the Vampire Slayer which has only just been judged as 'featured', but it really could benefit from a copyedit from a professional editor. I was wondering if you would be interested in improving the language of Buffy the Vampire Slayer by giving it a copyedit so that it genuinely deserves the featured star. Don't worry if you're too busy. Thanks - Paxomen 21:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

This is a good review

Hmm

I'm in a little bit of a pickle right now, but I'll see what I can do before FA. It shouldn't need too much at all. — Deckiller 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Apparently the link that brought me to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope was aimed at a specific old version ... and I'm either sleep deprived or going prematurely senile for not noticing a warning to that effect when I hit edit ... :( ... As it turns out most of what I actually (intended) to change was already done anyway. Except "Princess Leia, leader of the Rebel Alliance" ... really should be "Princess Leia, a leader of the Rebel Alliance".--Invisifan 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Memento trivia

Hi, I noticed you removed a bunch of entries from the Trivia section of Memento - I found some of those items very interesting and classic 'trivia'. I appreciate it may be tricky to draw the line at what is encyclopedic, but I don't see the items removed being more or less than the items remaining. What are your thoughts? --Mortice 22:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology for missing Pilot (House episode) copvio

Hey,

I just wanted to apologize for missing that there were still pieces of copyvio material in Pilot (House episode). There is a significant amount of new material, but Rob's right: There are significant parts remaining. It's really unfortunate that it went undetected for so long. I already speedied another copyvio at Autopsy (House episode), and I asked Rob, who's got more experience in these matters, to look at other cases. We need to weed these out ASAP so that we don't have another situation with a bnch of wasted effort being detected way down the line. — TKD::Talk 07:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied there. I find the claim that the reference itself is invalidly a bit tenuous, in my opinion, but I did point out one problem in that paragraph.

As for Pilot (House), see what I wrote at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/Other. I hate to say it, but you'll probably need to write up the plot summary from scratch and rewrite the problem areas that I've noted. Ask Robth whether he sees anything else other than what I've already noted, since he works heavily with copyvios. — TKD::Talk 04:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Batman Begins

I assume good faith in your edits to my contributions to Batman Begins. Much of what I added was incomplete, and I couldn't avoid leaving a mess after adding in a lot of detail last night. Some sections, such as character interpretations for Bruce Wayne and Alfred Pennyworth, were under-developed, and I had planned to expand on the interpretation of these characters in the film. I'd like to know why such interpretations, via primary sources, would not be notable? Furthermore, this article lacked a well-cited thematic scheme about why the film was made the way it was -- something I started by using an interview with Nolan and Goyer. Do you have any suggestions about how to go about this? I only got to around February or March 2004 in the links that I pulled off movie news archives and organized chronologically, so there's a lot more in store. I wanted to implement some of the material right off the bat so I could show that I was serious about the suggestions I made on the talk page. Let me know if you have any ideas about how I can go about improving this particular article, because I have a bit of citable content at hand. --Erik (/_contrib) @ 03:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I generally work on upcoming film articles, so this is my first major approach (other than general reverts and copy-edits) to an article of a completed film. I had always found it kind of amusing that the sequel for Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, had around five times as many citations as its predecessor. I plan to keep The Dark Knight clear of uncited information, but obviously a status can't be attached to it as the film doesn't come out until June 2008. So in the meantime, I guess I figured I'd try to bring Batman Begins up to par. I've been looking at featured-status film articles, including the Star Wars ones you worked on, to get an idea of how to make the best possible film article. I'm just trying to envision the layout in my head, especially when it comes to sectioning -- still trying to figure out stuff like how I can set up the Batmobile section better and the Batsuit section I plan to add. I'll continue to edit this article over the weekend (if I have time, since it's the weekend), so if you notice anything that to which you want to make a suggestion, feel free to drop a line on the Batman Begins talk page or my user talk page. --Erik (/_contrib) @ 16:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Plot section was tagged as messy and then recently revised by another user. Does the Plot section seem better now, and what suggestions would you make rewriting it in any way? Also, feedback on other parts such as the new Design section would be appreciated. I hope to expand the Production section over the weekend. --Erik (/_contrib) @ 18:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion about toning down spoilers in the Cast section. It makes sense to do that, especially to mask the roles of Liam Neeson and Ken Watanabe. Is the film article really ready to have GA status, though? I guess I still feel that the Production section is underwhelming (the production notes are chockful of information, just haven't gotten around to drawing from them yet). I've been busy with The Fountain, since it was the film article that got me editing on Misplaced Pages in the first place, and I felt the obligation to finish the job for the film's release this coming 22nd. I've avoided sectioning this time for that particular film article, and it seems to work better. I just tended to section a lot with stuff in film articles like Spider-Man 3 and The Dark Knight because the information is so specific and detached from each other due to the secrecy of the productions, so it's hard to tie everything together. Anyway, how does the GA nominee process work? Are there further changes requested to be made, then when Batman Begins editors follow through with the changes, the article's approved by other editors? --Erik (/_contrib) @ 16:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove the Sequel section. I guess the habit came from contributing to the current Sequel section at Spider-Man 3, for which there isn't an article yet. --Erik (/_contrib) @ 19:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

FA layout recommendations

Hello there. I greatly admire your work on the Star Wars series and I'm currently trying to bring The Lord of the Rings up to the same level. Just one thing really: your Production sections often tend to feel small. How much should I really write on about on set stuff such about accidents, locations filmed or the weather? Don't tell me it's because the prequels were mostly done on a greenscreen. Come down to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King to look at my work so far. Wiki-newbie 15:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

New queries

Hello again. I got ROTK up to GA and am currently working on The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and I'm thinking of shaping it into being very different. I have some questions:

1. Would it better to take information from a Design section and respin it into a 'Cultural references' section for ROTK?
2. How would TTT look if I made the article focus on different areas of the film? ie. an entire section on Helm's Deep from script to film?

Wiki-newbie 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation of plot

No, however, Raul654 did make a statement in an FAC (Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/V for Vendetta (film)): "No, the purpose of adding a reference is to allow someone to know the source of a particular bit of information. It should be implicitely obvious that when you are describing the plot of a work, the source of the information is the work itself. Thus, no reference is necessary." However, this would apply only to uncontroversial descriptive claims about the plot. Any interpretation of the events would require some secondary reference. — TKD::Talk 01:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars

No problem. No, you're not being a bother. — TKD::Talk 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

my last message

Just want the filmmaker to know I left my last message to him on the Star Wars discussion page which has been transferred to archive 4 of the talk page. You dont have to respond if you dont want to but you should still read the message.No dont worry its not personal,just an explanation for why i have disagreed with you all this time.

Thankyou

George W. Bush trivia section

Hi! I understand where you're coming from. But the guideline doesn't say to just throw out the trivia section; it says to work towards integrating the facts into the article. Towards that goal, I've added a discussion area at Talk:George W. Bush#Trivia. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 03:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I really dont care

No film maker I really dont care,why else you think I stopped editing your articles?I just edited them in the first place out of respect to a newcomer to star wars or people who'd like to know more about the trilogy. As for the "prequels",you knew exactly what Im talking about,no Im not accusing you,no personal attacks.That Superman Returns thing was only an example-and you know that. I just though it would be respectful to fans of the original trilogy and a newcomer that the "prequels" are not considered as star wars-thats all!!! Just as the Han shoots first thing.

But you know what if wekipedia is not unreliable as many have said,why else do you think people are allowed to edit articles just like that or write about things that dont really matter.

And Ive got a good idea here-DONT respond to this because all it'll do is continue this uselees and boring debate.Its a waste of your time and my time.

You and I have thrown the ball back and forth for a week now non-stop and I have decided to put the ball down.

Really this is not worth your time.And worry about what you write-it doesnt matter whather its true or not,since not every article written in history has carried facts. Good day.Nadirali 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

ANH

We might as well nominate it for FAC - the prose is better (albeit not perfect; we're going to need feedback from a larger group with strategic distance). — Deckiller 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we might have to wait another couple days; the bottom half still needs work. — Deckiller 17:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look, but I'm still finishing a copyedit request from about a week ago. I'll try to get to this around Thanksgiving. — TKD::Talk 02:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We patched up the bottom half; now we just have to work at ironing out lingering issues that we find or people bring up. It's a large article, so it's certainly not 100 percent yet. But since we haven't had any prose objections yet, it's not a major issue. — Deckiller 01:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Clearly I didn't put enough effort into it. I'm sorry. — Deckiller 17:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Filmaker. My apologies for adding some drama to your FAC nomination for Star Wars. I certainly didn't start it: the idea that an experienced and usually critical user like Tony can whimsically (and "accidentally") throw around accusations about "blatant rule-breaking" and not be held accountable by anyone—well, it's not gonna happen under my watch. Good luck with your nomination! –Outriggr § 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

TPM

Hey, would you mind giving it a rework first? You wrote the article as a whole, so it might be best for you to take the first run. — Deckiller 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Fountain

This film article achieved GA status recently, but I'd like to continue expanding the content and improving its quality. What are the steps that you suggest in seeking out help via peer review and other methods? Your personal suggestions on improving the article would be appreciated as well! --Erik (/_contrib) @ 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Empire Strikes Back article

Hello this is Nadirali.

I am messaging regarding a small error on the The Empire strikes back article.Do you want to fix it or would you like me to fix it for you?

RegardsNadirali 06:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

"It was re-released with changes to theaters in 1997, and this version was later released on VHS and Laserdisc, and finally on DVD in 2004."

Though it's a small and almost unnoticable error,it indicates that the 1997 special edition of EMpire was released on DVD.Lucasfilm's never released the 1997 editions on DVD as far as I know.The 2004 versions are really a seperate version all together. I just think the DVD refference to the 1997 version should be removed. Regards Nadirali 04:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

No problem.Always happy to help out.Nadirali 05:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

The Godfather characters

I weighed in. Merging into a new list article seems to be the best option, at least to me. Keep in mind that merging (or just redirecting) doesn't require an AfD. — TKD::Talk 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

S/he does have a point

S/he does have a point about that one line; there is no source to back it up (a citation would be required right after the comma), and it does seem a bit too general to be neutral. — Deckiller 03:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at both versions, I would say that you should probably start from the stable version, remove anything techincally unsourced, and add a very brief mention about George Lucas' response, but certainly not an entire paragraph or two to it. For the most part, the changes introduced are unhelpful, though. However, it's probabvly time to work towards a compromise. — TKD::Talk 02:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, you're in violation of the 3RR, too. That said, I don't think a block is the best option here. Discussion is. You guys are trying to argue your points through edit summaries of reverts instead of on the talk page. As such, I've protected the article for now and will watch the talk page. — TKD::Talk 04:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring isn't really productive, either. I understand your points about the stability, but there's a reason that we don't (generally) protect featured articles, too. :) Exceptions to the 3RR are only very specific cases (like clear-cut vandalism), and this really wasn't one of them; it's more of a content dispute (yes, there are formatting issues, but those are more mechanical). I thought that temporary protection was a better solution than blocking in this case. If there's no further discussion on the talk page, I'll unprotect. Then again, maybe the holidays will cool things down a bit. :)

Anyway, full protection is usually used in cases like this to enforce a cool-down period and promote discussion. I've actually asked Deckiller if he thinks that there's a better idea to fairly handle the situation. — TKD::Talk 04:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've decided to unprotect for now. Because of previous heavy revert warring, though, it'd be justified to issue blocks before 3RR is hit if reversion continues. I'm hoping that the temporary protection has calmed things down. — TKD::Talk 20:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope...

In the spirit of good faith, and so as not to start a revert war, I am leaving an explanation here. I do not approve in the wording your edit promotes, as it just feels grammatically wrong to refer to the word jidaigeki as "it", rather than "which", in that context. Maintaining that article's featured status requires making sure it is well-written, which absolutely necessitates grammatical perfection, and your wording feels awkward. elvenscout742 09:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC) BTW, since I'm editting it anyway, I'm going to completely restore my wording, but I would also accept which can be translated as... or which, when translated into English, means..., but the use of the word "translated" seems fairly irrelevant. elvenscout742 10:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)